David Brooks is once again wrong

[Aviation Pro]

I don't know how Brooks can hang his credibility on such a thin thread:

The Populist Myths on Income Inequality
By DAVID BROOKS

There are two schools of thought on income inequality. Members of the first school — populist politicians and a few economists — say the key issue is economic power.

The haves exercise more power over the have-nots. As a result, corporate profits soar, while wages stagnate. Money-drenched politicians push through shareholder-friendly trade deals that outsource American jobs while job insecurity skyrockets. C.E.O.’s get absurd salaries while the 99 percent of earners enjoy few benefits from productivity gains. Unions are weakened while manufacturing wages tumble and the middle class suffers.

In short, populists argue, the market is broken. The rules are rigged. The reigning ideology in Washington must be upended. Unions must be revived. Globalization needs to be reorganized.

The problem with this narrative is that it doesn’t really fit the facts. First, workers over all are not getting a smaller slice of the pie. Wages and benefits have made up roughly the same share of G.D.P. for 50 years. Second, offshore outsourcing is not decimating employment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, outsourcing is responsible for 1.9 percent of layoffs, and the efficiencies it produces create more jobs at better wages than the ones destroyed.

Rest here: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/opinion/07brooks.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Here's my response to him:

Mr. Brooks,

Your arguements are specious and lack any credibility in the face of the overwhelming statistical evidence that wages are artificially low. Your cherry-picking of statistics from the Bureau of Labor is typical of the obfuscation that is the hallmark of the conservative enablers of the Bush administration.

You need a new meme.

[papau]

1. Brooks should read the New York Times - the Aug 28, 2006 chart

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/28/business/28wages_chart.html

August 28, 2006

[yourout]

2. I'd be alot more suprized if he was ever right about anything.

He is just another PNAC wanna be.

[struggle4progress]

3. I think DB says whatever Norquist's Wednesday group tells him to say

He reliably parrots the Wingnut "Thought of the Week"

[hatrack]

4. And this is a surprise . . . how?

:hi:

[Demit]

5. That "First, workers over all are not getting a smaller slice of the pie"

statement sounds like where he starts getting wiggly in his thesis. That and the "roughly the same share of G.D.P." statement.

I can't read the whole thing (thank god for times select! saves me money and from having to read the execrable David Brooks) but maybe somebody here who is versed in economics can explain how what he says might be technically true but has nothing to do with how wages have stayed stagnant. What a charlatan Brooks is.

[depakid]

6. Brooks is a psuedo-intellectual

with very little understanding of the issues- and without the ability to do the analysis.

It's all an act with that guy- Texans have a saying about it "all hat, no cattle."

[Igel]

7. In 2004 it was pointed out that wages were stagnant and

a smaller portion of GDP.

The conclusion that wages and benefits had been keeping up with inflation, if not a bit ahead of inflation, was accurate.

The key is in what's being described. Papau shows, correctly, a chart that looks at take home pay. It's irrelevant to Brooks' claim, which concerns wages and benefits: this includes health insurance (which, to be sure, isn't evenly distributed), day care, tuition reimbursement, and more.

Brooks' may be wrong; I haven't seen information relevant to his claim since 2004. Or maybe 2003. I moved to Houston in summer '04 and read the 'wages + benefits' business before I left NY State.